Silicone catheters may be superior to latex catheters in difficult urethral catheterization after urethral dilation

Carlos Villanueva, S. G.M. Hossain, Carl A. Nelson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Urethral dilation in the setting of difficult urethral catheterization is sometimes necessary to avoid suprapubic catheterization. Anecdotally, we have observed that less dilation is needed when advancing a silicone catheter over a Glidewire compared with a latex catheter of the same size. Our aim was to quantify the difference in the resistance to buckling between silicone and latex catheters. Materials and Methods: A BOSE Electroforce load testing device was used to test 12F and 16F silicone and latex catheters under tensile and compressive forces. This information was used to characterize the buckling (kinking) behavior of the catheters. Results: Silicone catheters showed more than 50% greater resistance to kinking when compared with regular latex or coude latex catheters. Conclusions: In the setting of the difficult urethral catheterization, silicone catheters should be used after urethral dilation, advanced through a Glidewire, because they offer more resistance to buckling and might necessitate less dilation than conventional latex catheters.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)841-844
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume25
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2011

Fingerprint

Urinary Catheterization
Latex
Silicones
Dilatation
Catheters
Catheterization
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Silicone catheters may be superior to latex catheters in difficult urethral catheterization after urethral dilation. / Villanueva, Carlos; Hossain, S. G.M.; Nelson, Carl A.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 25, No. 5, 01.05.2011, p. 841-844.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{33e07e72b2874ac8ac8de53e3666d7fe,
title = "Silicone catheters may be superior to latex catheters in difficult urethral catheterization after urethral dilation",
abstract = "Background and Purpose: Urethral dilation in the setting of difficult urethral catheterization is sometimes necessary to avoid suprapubic catheterization. Anecdotally, we have observed that less dilation is needed when advancing a silicone catheter over a Glidewire compared with a latex catheter of the same size. Our aim was to quantify the difference in the resistance to buckling between silicone and latex catheters. Materials and Methods: A BOSE Electroforce load testing device was used to test 12F and 16F silicone and latex catheters under tensile and compressive forces. This information was used to characterize the buckling (kinking) behavior of the catheters. Results: Silicone catheters showed more than 50{\%} greater resistance to kinking when compared with regular latex or coude latex catheters. Conclusions: In the setting of the difficult urethral catheterization, silicone catheters should be used after urethral dilation, advanced through a Glidewire, because they offer more resistance to buckling and might necessitate less dilation than conventional latex catheters.",
author = "Carlos Villanueva and Hossain, {S. G.M.} and Nelson, {Carl A.}",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2010.0591",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "841--844",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Silicone catheters may be superior to latex catheters in difficult urethral catheterization after urethral dilation

AU - Villanueva, Carlos

AU - Hossain, S. G.M.

AU - Nelson, Carl A.

PY - 2011/5/1

Y1 - 2011/5/1

N2 - Background and Purpose: Urethral dilation in the setting of difficult urethral catheterization is sometimes necessary to avoid suprapubic catheterization. Anecdotally, we have observed that less dilation is needed when advancing a silicone catheter over a Glidewire compared with a latex catheter of the same size. Our aim was to quantify the difference in the resistance to buckling between silicone and latex catheters. Materials and Methods: A BOSE Electroforce load testing device was used to test 12F and 16F silicone and latex catheters under tensile and compressive forces. This information was used to characterize the buckling (kinking) behavior of the catheters. Results: Silicone catheters showed more than 50% greater resistance to kinking when compared with regular latex or coude latex catheters. Conclusions: In the setting of the difficult urethral catheterization, silicone catheters should be used after urethral dilation, advanced through a Glidewire, because they offer more resistance to buckling and might necessitate less dilation than conventional latex catheters.

AB - Background and Purpose: Urethral dilation in the setting of difficult urethral catheterization is sometimes necessary to avoid suprapubic catheterization. Anecdotally, we have observed that less dilation is needed when advancing a silicone catheter over a Glidewire compared with a latex catheter of the same size. Our aim was to quantify the difference in the resistance to buckling between silicone and latex catheters. Materials and Methods: A BOSE Electroforce load testing device was used to test 12F and 16F silicone and latex catheters under tensile and compressive forces. This information was used to characterize the buckling (kinking) behavior of the catheters. Results: Silicone catheters showed more than 50% greater resistance to kinking when compared with regular latex or coude latex catheters. Conclusions: In the setting of the difficult urethral catheterization, silicone catheters should be used after urethral dilation, advanced through a Glidewire, because they offer more resistance to buckling and might necessitate less dilation than conventional latex catheters.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957606757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957606757&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2010.0591

DO - 10.1089/end.2010.0591

M3 - Article

C2 - 21476876

AN - SCOPUS:79957606757

VL - 25

SP - 841

EP - 844

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 5

ER -